From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id OMv3MYibEF9SdwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:25:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id UPndLYibEF/MRAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:25:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A232F940225 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34506 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8ZB-00081a-GB for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:25:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8Z4-00081H-86 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:25:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8Z3-0005mT-T1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:25:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8Z3-0004MU-NJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:25:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#42289: recursive import does not dort alphabetically Resent-From: Leo Famulari Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42289 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Hartmut Goebel Received: via spool by 42289-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42289.159492384216683 (code B ref 42289); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:25:01 +0000 Received: (at 42289) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jul 2020 18:24:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55994 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8Y6-0004Kt-5p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:24:02 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:59689) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jw8Y3-0004Ka-UM for 42289@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:24:01 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21C85C00E4; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=26T9Kl5TTImSxAZJDsW3+SAa pMvdhTe9Kc99eFrFwXc=; b=m+41OLnV2eyP8BgTIKCAGVcMNaAC09UujKYGHcHX pfdw+3Fa8AfW+fGxbrm6exbGImBpU777hJ1kPGwTPPxB739EQ49cEJNhPt8TOoZo gxf6p95XI6fbjyTfSruHmUOUbOEtOPnXpkWZQFK7k8QHsbajCOpDdsTtZ+ZNVeqo JQI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=26T9Kl 5TTImSxAZJDsW3+SAapMvdhTe9Kc99eFrFwXc=; b=boGzpfRNH0iwfPyyomIL9E TQMsddflfeH490ibY+Ipf62Nr5tx792A8CPADKDaNpkpUt3jX+tD5lsfOeQbSrQ8 EaAAydladZEC1790tz7RVdAvE7FCnt3EaqvYd2w3V0qhbaFm8v+uVtsYJG7jXxyQ pYaXVSplmXwDzWFOTVzDkWzbHefFo3uWYX1l1l1KvqRACz238ik4n8xjIKew60q2 HWVJ1p9TzdzizGT5E2Cx9JCsQXWpgbNpncp8ZniEF3/5MEmVz2olljP6oNBrrwkZ qv3ghhl3GWlc8dfngx5a66VlvIldBr+0Nz9b/XL801qJczWVk8Cp8Qf8AJx2n+iA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrfeeggdduvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufeeivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffev gfenucfkphepjeefrddugedurdduvdejrddugeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (c-73-141-127-146.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.141.127.146]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 916D130600B2; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:51 -0400 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: <20200716182351.GA26195@jasmine.lan> References: <86zh89av3c.fsf@gmail.com> <87692d5d-0650-c2bd-1533-54b38677d97e@crazy-compilers.com> <20200709173955.GA22616@jasmine.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 42289@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=m+41OLnV; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=boGzpfRN; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: uhB/JJa9lzFm On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:10:45PM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Many modules are sorted and some packages even contain a comment asking > for being sorted. So I had the impression this is good practice. > > Also scanning through the file is easier for humans if packages are > sorted - depends on personal work style. To clarify, I don't think that sorting packages alphanumerically is bad or good. It's largely a matter of taste, and I don't think we need to make a policy either way.